Theoretical Issues with New Actors and Emergent Modes of Labour Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the global economy undergoes a major transformation, the inadequacy of labour relations theories dating back to Fordism, especially the systemic analysis model (Dunlop, 1958) and the strategic model (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie, 1986), in which only three actors—union, employer and State—share the stage is becoming increasingly obvious. \nA good example is provided by companies offering information technology services to businesses (B2B IT services), where new means of regulation emerge and illustrate the need to incorporate new actors and new issues if we are to account for its contemporary complexity. \nA survey of 88 B2B IT professionals has revealed regulation practices that call into question the traditional boundaries of the industrial relations system from two points of view: that of the three main actors, by bringing the customer and work teams onto the stage, and that of the distinction between the contexts and the system itself.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".